The Institute for Research on Creation is criticized, rejected by a federal judge

The Institution for Creation Research was a California-based school that moved to the Dallas area three years ago.

They applied to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Council for certification to grant master of science degrees; the HECB revised its program and refused it. They continued.

A federal judge in Austin has ruled against the group and in favor of the HECB, in a decision that stings quite strongly.

“It seems that although the court has twice demanded [ICR] to re-plead and set out a short and clear statement of the relief sought, the plaintiff is entirely unable to make a complaint that is not overly wordy, rambling, inconsistent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information, “wrote the Judge Sam Sparks.

And then he got to the meat of the deal.

The Court notes for the record that it expresses no opinion here on whether it agrees with the Commission’s decision. He does not “judge the wisdom, fairness or logic” of the Board’s decision because he has no jurisdiction to do so. The Court simply arrives at the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the decision was rationally linked to a legitimate interest of the State.

He noted that the ICR is free to teach the course as it sees fit, even with its decision; they simply cannot offer a certified master of science degree to graduates.

And that’s probably a good thing. In his summary judgment, Sparks said that Joseph Stafford, one of the people reviewing the matter for the state:

cited the following excerpts from the ICRGS Program Catalog:

1. “The position of the institute is that … all authentic the facts of science back up the Bible. “

2. << The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems, but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator. “

3. “All things in the universe were created and made by God within the literal six days of Creation Week described in Genesis …[.] The creative record is factual, historical and insightful; So all theories of origin and development which involve evolution in any form are false. (emphasis added by Stafford).

Dr Stafford concluded that these statements (and others) constituted a rejection of the fundamental principles that guide what scientists do, because scientists must “remain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their full explanations of the processes seem to work. “

The National Center for Science Education welcomed the decision, calling it “a significant legal defeat” for the ICR.